[D&D]"Complete" books: worth it?

[MerricB]

The other DotF prestige classes:

* Hunter of the Dead - revised in Complete Warrior
Significant changes:
- no longer gain access to martial weapons (they probably have it from a previous class)
- slight changes to spell list
- extra uses of smite undead at higher levels
- positive energy burst reduced in range from 100'/level to 20' fixed. Cha modifier now affects the DC of the save.
+ Conclusion: mostly similar; a few 3.5e touches

* Knight of the Chalice - revised in Complete Warrior
- prereqs: no longer needs +1 full plate, nor favoured enemy (demons)
- d10 HD instead of d12
- Demonslaying now is Fiendslaying and works against all evil outsiders
- a few other 3.5e touches to abilities
+ Conclusion: mostly similar, but strengthened so it isn't just demons, and can be entered easier. Much better!

* Knight of the Middle Circle - not yet revised

* Master of Shrouds - revised in Libris Mortis
- prereqs changed from Conc 10r; Spc 10r to Conc 5r, Kn (Relig) 5r, Spc 5r and Augment Summoning + Spell Focus (conjuration); also spell requirements changed
- Gains Rebuke Undead ability (unbelievably, the old one didn't have it - but gave Extra Turning!)
- Summon Undead ability revised and balanced. Top level allows summoning of augmented Dread Wraith!
- Gains improved summoned undead
- gets 9/10 spellcasting progression instead of 10/10
- no longer gains Death, Evil and Protection as bonus domains (!!!)
+ Conclusion: better focused class.

* Templar - renamed to Pious Templar, in Complete Divine (see previous post)

Cheers!

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The extra options are ok but I find I have to consider them case by case which is a bit of work. This has led to a default "no" until approved, which can be a bit hard on some of my players to grasp, but it is essential to allow me to maintain the internal logic of the campaign I am trying to present.

"Worth it" is pretty subjective on what you value, by default I'd say no.

 

[tetsujin28]

Quite a few people, actually.

But they're fools! Fools, I say!

 

[The Shaman]

But they're fools! Fools, I say!

There are two kinds of fools in the world: the one who says, "This is old, and therefore it is good," and the other who says, "This is new, and therefore it is better."

 

[MerricB]

One of the things I've noticed about the Complete books is how their game elements show a much greater mastery of 3e than the original class books.

This is most apparent in how Tome & Blood and DotF deal with spellcasters - they tend to either be overpowered (see Hospitaler and Elemental Savant), with full casting progression plus lots of abilities.

By the time 3.5e rolled around, the design decision of "2-3 levels of spellcasting loss balances extra stuff" becomes apparent. First in the DMG 3.5e (Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight), then with the revisions.

Hospitaler moves from full fighter abilities + full cleric abilities to 7/10 spellcasting + fighter abilities.

Elemental Savant is hit by a lot more restrictions.

By the time of Complete Adventurer, the 3.5e R&D team are exploring the implications of spell/skill and feat/skill synergy, and likewise the possibilities of multiclassing.

Cheers!

 

[tetsujin28]

There are two kinds of fools in the world: the one who says, "This is old, and therefore it is good," and the other who says, "This is new, and therefore it is better."

More is better. Mo' better

 

[shilsen]

One of the things I've noticed about the Complete books is how their game elements show a much greater mastery of 3e than the original class books.

...

By the time of Complete Adventurer, the 3.5e R&D team are exploring the implications of spell/skill and feat/skill synergy, and likewise the possibilities of multiclassing.

Cheers!

I agree, and I've always thought this is one of the reasons why there were many complaints about things (PrCs and feats mostly) being nerfed when updated to 3.5 in the Complete books. Even though they are far from perfect, they do a much better job of achieving balance and taking into account the fact that a particular PrC/feat's effectiveness will vary wildly depending on what other classes, feats and abilities are used in conjunction with it.

 

[MadMaxim]

More is better. Mo' better

Exactly

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I love 'em, mostly cuz I didn't pay a thing for them! Getting in terrible accidents and having surgery with long recovery time has benefits, evidently. Gamer friends bring presents.

 

[radferth]

IMHO:

CW is good, although I found the samurai rather odd. I heavily modified it to be a knight base class. I like the idea of tactical feats and weapon styles, but found most of the ones presented to be lacking.

CD is less good, kind of sloppy, and many of the PrCs were boring to me. I don't go in for the way 3.5 handles paladin's mounts, so the loss of this section from DotF displeased me (I guess all you need on that is now in the PH). Some very powerful combat spells for druids. Not sure if they are unbalanced, but I don't like divine casting tossing damaging spells left and right.

CAr is good. Most everything I wanted to use required a bit of tinkering, but not so much as the others in the series, and there was a lot of useful material overall.

CAd was the best read of the four, but the least useful for my campaign. A lot of the classes and abilities just don't work well for my campaign. Most people I game with regard this one as the best of the lot overall.